Riverway
Forum Replies Created
Admin, you really explained this corporate and franchise issue succinctly. Thanks for your thoughts and the direction to further research the issue.
Riverway
Thanks, Admin. This is great information and I have more digging to do.
Am I to interpret that an officer of a foreign corporation (foreign to the federal zone) which is incorporated under the laws and franchise of a State of the Union (obviously!), becomes for all intents and purposes a public official or a “U.S. citizen” pursuant to 8 USC 1401 who is then subject to various IRC statutes personally, as you understand it?
I know you don't give legal advice, just opinions.
Riverway
…….. a driver's license implies a domicile on federal territory……….
Admin, could you point me in the right direction to dig a little deeper on this statement?
Thanks
Riverway
- Bing wrote on Sep 19 2007, 10:52 AM:One of the best ways to know the issues and topics which are of most concern to the IRS and the corrupt US DOJ, is to see what they DO NOT TALK ABOUT or the issues and facts which they attempt to hide from the American People.
Strangely enough, for reasons that remain unknown, neither the Bushie White House nor the US DOJ webiste, has seen fit to post a transcript of the acceptance speech made by US Attorney General Nominee, Michael Mukasey, when he appeared in teh Rose garden with Bush, a couple of days ago.
Anyway, the day after his speech, I saw a snippet of the nominee's speech in a newspaper, but since then, despite repeated searches online, I have not been able to locate the entire speech.
Which begs the question: What is the Bush White House and corrupt DOJ, hiding?
Having read a quote from Mukasey's speech with President Bushie by his side, I immediately recognized that Mukasey acceptance speech contained important ammo that those of us in the Tax Honesty Movement could use in our struggle against the corrupt U.S. Government and the corrupt IRS.
If anyone in the Forum can locate the entire transcript of Michael Mukasey's speech, please post the link in this thread.
Thanks.
Bing
[post=”4254″]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]Bing, this is another speech he gave where we may glean a bit of onfo about his positions:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe…ml?id=110005059
Riverway
Richard, we in this forum rely and depend upon settled case law to defend and substantiate our positions, not commentaries.
Do you have any Supreme Court rulings in regards to this change of wording and capitalization?
- lambskin wrote on Jul 11 2007, 08:56 PM:Hey all,
Let's not forget that all those men which we all so often quote are dead and that the most superior quote ever uttered on earth, the one-and-only quote that still stands true for every man on the planet, because the Author is still alive, was – “You shall know the 'Truth' and the 'Truth' shall set you free.
Keep that one, fundamental rule in your mind and you'll never have anything to worry about no matter what anybody, dead or alive, says or has ever said.
Gentlemen; that means that once you've been set free, you're free for good, and there's nothin' ever gonna change it. “THE MAN” don't go back on His word.
The premise for this is so simple – these guys (or at least the majority of 'em)calling themselves our government have absolutely no clue as to what this world (or at least our lifetime being spent in it) is about and everything they do, no matter what approach they take to accomplishing their tasks, is self destructive and doomed to fail.
G&P,
Lambskin
[post=”4104″][/post]It's sad how when most people quote Jesus when he spoke about “the truth shall set you free” they conveniently leave out the caveat: IF YOU ABIDE IN MY WORD, you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Don't expect to have truth revealed to you Lambskin if you are too lazy to study His word and then quote it correctly.
Riverway
I think WTP is too busy explaining Bin Laden's actions to bother with something so mundane as the appellate decision!
Sonik Fury wrote on May 11 2007, 05:30 AM:Why are people so quiet and not commenting or posting on this? It's been day #3 and nobody is peeping a word! Not even WTP.http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/dc/055359a.pdf
The Appellate decision is here!
[post=”3859″][/post]- reb wrote on Mar 6 2007, 05:24 PM:With all due respect for the SEDM ebook you mentioned which I have not read, I believe your position that the U.S. district courts are operating as territorial courts is erroneous. Territorial courts occurred in Kansas, Oklahoma, etc., before they became states.
A recent citation going around the tax movement declared the district court was a territorial court. If the case was analyzed, the district court was in (as I recall) Costa Rica. The U.S. Congress had specifically legislated that the district court established to adjudicate in that nation would apply the laws of that nation. U.S. constitutional rights did not apply in that nation. The nation was a territory of the U.S.
I shall try to locate the SEDM ebook.
Reb
[post=”3682″][/post]You must mean Puerto Rico?
Bing, any known case law regarding this?
Would one raise the jurisdictional red flag when being presented with an indictment and drug before the black robed actors?
This might be a good theory to also post over at Tips and Tricks.
Why would you want to be a theif? You had an agreement with the card companies to pay for your purchases, honor that!
When you are through paying for what you rightfully owe, then cut up the cards and exit from the database.
Riverway
- Bing wrote on Jan 24 2007, 03:41 PM:The term “person” in all federal statutes, is a legal construct, a statutory creation, thus it MUST exclude all Sovereigns.
I am not sure how else I can explain this.
R-dawg, use the search utility at Famguardian and do various searches for “person”, etc, and read thru the hits.
The “U.S. person” in the IRC at 26 USC 7701 (a) 30 is a perfect example.
ALL nonresident aliens, which is exactly what nearly all native born American nationals are, can NOT also simultaneously be a “U.S. person”
As an aside, when you buy a house and have to sign all those real estate forms, slipped in there is always an affidavit or IRS Form in which the buyer agrees that they are a “U.S. person”, they just check that box, sign, and don't even think about what they are doing.
Now we can better understand why 27 million people watch the TV program American Idol.
[post=”3481″][/post]Bing,
Humor me here. This concept of a “person” as defined by statute with respect to an administrator or officer of a corp is not well covered here at this forum as well as others. I understand the issue of nonresident alien vs. U.S. person with regards to Soverigns, BUT what if one who is a native born American national chooses to start or become an officer of a corporation? In that office of administrator, as someone needs to administrate, does that make him a U.S. person as defined by the aforementioned statute? And if so, is he now engaged in a “trade or business” and required to pay Subtitle A taxes.
Also a quote by Author #2:
“The definition of “person” found in 26 USC 6671(b ) and 26 USC 7343 makes officers of corporations subject to the penalty and liability provisions of the I.R.C. HOWEVER, there are several things the code doesn't say outright that are also true:
1. These “officers of a corporation” are those within federal corporations registered only in the District of Columbia and excluding state corporations. Corporations do not have a legal existence outside the jurisdiction within which they were established.”
Do you or anyone know of any case law regarding paragraph 1?
Riverway
- Bing wrote on Jan 24 2007, 07:12 AM:In the uSA, all native born state Citizens are Sovereign, that is to say they are the author of law. Thus, any Code, be it a “tax code” or any other unenacted code, when they use the term “person”, it by definition excludes all Sovereign Citizens. I am sure many of you here already are aware of this.
With respect to Author 2 post above, I agree completely but with one clarification. Author 2 asserts,
“3. The I.R.C. is not positive law and therefore obligates no one to do anything without proof that the code section being enforced is enacted into positive law. . .”
Here, Author 2 is referring to those folks who are not engaged in a trade or business. That is to say when he used the word “anyone”, he was NOT referring to US Government workers who are obviously engaged in a trade or business.
You see, the I.R.C. is basically an Employee Handbook, for U.S. Government workers, and as such, it need not be enacted into positive law in order to be enforceable against those who are effectively connected with the conduct of A trade or business inside the federal U.S., and against those who unwittingly may have made an election to treat their income as being effectively connected to a trade or business, or otherwise signed contracts (like a W-4 Agreement) in which they make the same type of election.
Bing
[post=”3476″][/post]Bing, am I to understand by your explaination that a “person” as defined by the above statute who is an officer of a corporation cannot also be a Soverign Citizen of a state or forfeits that soverignity? Because as I understand the term “person” as defined, it applies to one who is responsible for the administration of the corporation ie. files returns, pays the tax, contracts for it etc.
Please explain further, as I am trying to wrap my mind around this concept.
Riverway
26 USC ? 6671. Rules for application of assessable penalties
(a) Penalty assessed as tax
The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be paid upon notice and demand by the Secretary, and shall be assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. Except as otherwise provided, any reference in this title to ?tax? imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.
(:cool: Person defined
The term ?person?, as used in this subchapter, includes an officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee, or member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs.
It is my interpretation that this statute and 7343 deal with the duty of an officer or principal of a corporation or partnership to file the necessary paperwork (the act) and pay the applicipal tax (corporate tax) on behalf of the fiction, and the penalties for failure to do so. As I interpret these statutes, these do NOT apply to individuals.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Have you overlooked Tom Tancredo? He certainly speaks for the majority of Americans who want this border closed as well as stopping this unholy North American Union proposal.
You are right about the media whores and how they can sink a candidate, but at least with Tancredo, he has a wholesome pre political career as something other than a lawyer, he was a teacher. The reality is that he doesn't team play with those behind the scenes who pull the strings, so who knows how far he would go.
Any comments?
- Sonik Speed wrote on Jan 21 2007, 04:53 AM:DISCLAIMER: Before anyone reads the details of what I am about to share, a disclaimer is necessary. I am not an attorney. I do not give legal advise. Each time I speak, I validate and use proper citations, as previous posts I have made on this website is a clear testament to this fact. However, with the scenario I went through today, I cannot validate, given the situation. Therefore, it is your choice whether to believe me or not. I yield to the small credibiliy that I have developed on this website through the posts I have made. Again, DO NOT ask me to verify the following situation, because I cannot, since I did not have a video camera or any other similar recording device. You should NEVER believe what people tell you over the internet, unless you can verify those claims. But in this case, I am sharing with you a story which I cannot ABSOLUTELY verify to you. I can only write down what has happen. It is my writing that you can only trust.
I DO NOT advocate speeding or aggressive driving. I do believe the traffic laws (within their constitutional limitations and state boundaries are PERFECTLY constitutional). I do believe that a state is entitled to her own police power. I am not one of those wacko people that claim that they are TOTALLY immune from state police power or those who claim that they are not subject to state traffic laws. I am a believer of traffic laws and I condemn people who say they are above the law or ACT as if they are above the law. I totally disagree with the nonsense of “getting out of the system” by merely using an International Driver's Permit. I would add however, that I AM A HUGE ADVOCATE OF ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 studies. I do feel I am well-versed with jurisdictional studies.I do feel I know when to use or when NOT to use it.
The purpose of what I did below was to LEARN something and not break the state's driving laws. Let me echo that: I wanted to test what I learned and NOT break any law. I am a firm believer that: EXPERIENCE IS MUCH BETTER THAN A MILLION CONSTITUTIONAL THEORIES. It was NOW time to put what I learned to the test.
Therefore, with all that said – please permit me to explain to you what happen to me today. . .
______________________________________________
For the first time, I saw a “Federal” police car. It was a Federal chartered vehicle with a Federal officer in a car, having the engraved writings on the car written in big bold letters as “United States Park Police”. Now I did some research and found out that the United States Park Police is PERFECTLY a constitutional police power, within the jurisdictional realm of a Federal area. Anyway – moving on…
I was amazed that I saw one. I did not even know one existed, until recently. For about 2 minutes, both my car and that car were heading towards the same direction. 2 minutes for me seemed like 2 seconds, as I had to make a quick decision in my head. That decision being, was to TEST the jurisdictional boundaries with this Federal officer and I, in state territory WHICH I KNOW FOR A FACT, was not ceded as per Title 44 and Article 1, Section 8. So I took a deep breath and went for it… It was now or never, since I seeing a Federal police car was not something I have seen before…
We came to a red light and he was at all times on my left. There were two lanes. I pretended as if he were not there. I did nothing to threaten his vehicle, nor would I ever do such thing. I just minded my own business and proceded accordingly. The light turned green. The speed limit was 35. After going a good 100-yards head to head with the officer, I chose to accelerate to 45 miles per hour. This did not raise an eyebrow, so I accelerated to 55. Once the officer saw me accelerate, he shifted towards the right lane, behind me. He followed me for about another 100 yards and this time he closed in at a speed greater than 55 miles per hour for a short few seconds. Lo and behold – the lights went on…
Police officers deal with crazy people all the time. They have to deal with irate drivers, drunk drivers and any other trouble makes. Therefore, to give this police officer courtesy, I shut my car off, turned on the lights and placed my hands on the steering wheel where the can be seen. I rolled down my window. He immediately requested in a loud voice: License, Registration and Insurance.
I sat there and thought to myself for a good 5 seconds, on how to handle this situation without disrespecting the man, but protecting myself at the same time. These are the EXACT words that were exchanged:
SONIK: If I may ask sir: Why did you pull me over?
OFFICER: I pulled you over because you went 55 miles per hour in a 35 mile zone. You were speeding.
SONIK: I was not speeding. [In the interest of fairness – yes I was accelerating at the rate he told me. This is not the point. There was MORE to it than me speeding at 55 miles per hour. Obviously, he did not know my intentions.]
OFFICER: You were speeding in front of me. I saw you clearly.
SONIK: Sir, I was NOT speeding
OFFICER: Look – I do not want to argue with you. Just give me your license, registration and insurance.
SONIK: Fine. [Hands over the paper work]
OFFICER: Do you need to be somewhere at this time? Why are you in a hurry?
SONIK: I am not in a hurry sir.
OFFICER: You were in a hurry.
SONIK: Look officer, if you think I was speeding, then fine give me a ticket and I will be on my way. It is no use of me arguing against you. If you say I speeded, then there is nothing I can do to prove you wrong, because your word outweighs mine.
OFFICER: I'll be right back… [He takes my license with him into his car]
Ok – so at this point a MILLION things are going through my mind. I was trying to figure out on how to bring up this sensitive topic of jurisdiction to him. I did not want to come out too harsh. So I said to myself 1) First I will ask him to give me a warning. By me saying that, he will think that I think, he is a real state cop. If that did not work, then I would catch him offguard by declaring the jurisdictional basis of pulling me over. He then came…
OFFICER: Okay look – just take it a little slow next time – I am going to let you off on a warning…
I did not express any emotion when he said that. I just pulled up my window and left. Then – I started to smile by shaking my head… Not because I was let off, but because I really believed that he had not the scantest idea that I knew about jurisdiction. Had I brought the issue up, then it would have hit him like a wall! His presumption is what made him think that he was the boss. Little did he know…
Sonik Speed
Great experiment, Sonic. I had a little situation happen this last November as well. My company was building a road under contract to a paving company for the local county. Along comes an agent for the IRS and he wants to dip our dump truck tanks to check for off road diesel (big fine for those who run off road diesel (no road tax) in over the road trucks). I immediatly refused access as I reminded him of his lack of jurisdiction, he then threw out some statute that grants IRS authority to check if the truck is licensed and a fine for refusal. I told him to take a hike.
Well, he went over my head (as we were subcontracted to another company), at which point I allowed the check. (We always run legal)
If this were to happen again with my company as the prime contractor, they could go pound sand!
Riverway
